Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 601 | control, N = 301 | treatment, N = 301 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 60 | 50.74 ± 12.68 (25 - 74) | 49.94 ± 13.15 (25 - 74) | 51.53 ± 12.37 (31 - 72) | 0.631 |
gender | 60 | 0.781 | |||
f | 41 (68%) | 20 (67%) | 21 (70%) | ||
m | 19 (32%) | 10 (33%) | 9 (30%) | ||
occupation | 60 | 0.945 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (3.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (10%) | 4 (13%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (6.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
other | 2 (3.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
part_time | 10 (17%) | 5 (17%) | 5 (17%) | ||
retired | 15 (25%) | 7 (23%) | 8 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
student | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
unemploy | 17 (28%) | 9 (30%) | 8 (27%) | ||
marital | 60 | >0.999 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
divore | 5 (8.3%) | 3 (10%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
married | 13 (22%) | 6 (20%) | 7 (23%) | ||
none | 35 (58%) | 18 (60%) | 17 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (5.0%) | 2 (6.7%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
widow | 3 (5.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
edu | 60 | 0.915 | |||
bachelor | 19 (32%) | 9 (30%) | 10 (33%) | ||
diploma | 9 (15%) | 6 (20%) | 3 (10%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (5.0%) | 2 (6.7%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
primary | 4 (6.7%) | 1 (3.3%) | 3 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (6.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (23%) | 7 (23%) | 7 (23%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
fam_income | 60 | 0.873 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (5.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (6.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (8.3%) | 2 (6.7%) | 3 (10%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (5.0%) | 3 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (15%) | 6 (20%) | 3 (10%) | ||
2001_4000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (15%) | 4 (13%) | 5 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (6.7%) | 1 (3.3%) | 3 (10%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (15%) | 4 (13%) | 5 (17%) | ||
medication | 60 | 50 (83%) | 26 (87%) | 24 (80%) | 0.488 |
onset_duration | 60 | 14.98 ± 12.00 (0 - 56) | 16.98 ± 13.26 (1 - 56) | 12.98 ± 10.43 (0 - 35) | 0.199 |
onset_age | 60 | 35.76 ± 13.62 (15 - 64) | 32.96 ± 12.16 (16 - 55) | 38.55 ± 14.61 (15 - 64) | 0.113 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 601 | control, N = 301 | treatment, N = 301 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 60 | 3.25 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.30 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 0.750 |
recovery_stage_b | 60 | 17.93 ± 2.63 (9 - 23) | 17.83 ± 2.84 (9 - 23) | 18.03 ± 2.44 (14 - 23) | 0.771 |
ras_confidence | 60 | 30.23 ± 4.66 (19 - 40) | 29.73 ± 4.27 (19 - 40) | 30.73 ± 5.04 (20 - 39) | 0.410 |
ras_willingness | 60 | 12.10 ± 1.98 (7 - 15) | 12.00 ± 1.78 (9 - 15) | 12.20 ± 2.19 (7 - 15) | 0.699 |
ras_goal | 60 | 17.43 ± 2.82 (12 - 24) | 17.47 ± 2.69 (12 - 23) | 17.40 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 0.928 |
ras_reliance | 60 | 13.28 ± 2.86 (8 - 20) | 13.03 ± 2.68 (8 - 18) | 13.53 ± 3.06 (8 - 20) | 0.504 |
ras_domination | 60 | 10.02 ± 2.23 (3 - 15) | 10.53 ± 1.87 (7 - 15) | 9.50 ± 2.46 (3 - 14) | 0.072 |
symptom | 60 | 29.95 ± 9.69 (14 - 56) | 29.70 ± 9.11 (14 - 48) | 30.20 ± 10.39 (15 - 56) | 0.844 |
slof_work | 60 | 22.35 ± 4.85 (10 - 30) | 22.40 ± 4.45 (15 - 30) | 22.30 ± 5.30 (10 - 30) | 0.937 |
slof_relationship | 60 | 25.67 ± 5.94 (11 - 35) | 25.33 ± 6.07 (13 - 35) | 26.00 ± 5.90 (11 - 35) | 0.668 |
satisfaction | 60 | 20.80 ± 6.42 (5 - 30) | 19.37 ± 5.95 (5 - 29) | 22.23 ± 6.65 (5 - 30) | 0.084 |
mhc_emotional | 60 | 11.25 ± 3.68 (4 - 18) | 10.97 ± 3.03 (6 - 17) | 11.53 ± 4.26 (4 - 18) | 0.555 |
mhc_social | 60 | 14.48 ± 5.08 (6 - 26) | 14.73 ± 5.12 (7 - 26) | 14.23 ± 5.11 (6 - 23) | 0.706 |
mhc_psychological | 60 | 21.90 ± 5.90 (6 - 36) | 21.50 ± 5.61 (10 - 33) | 22.30 ± 6.25 (6 - 36) | 0.604 |
resilisnce | 60 | 16.42 ± 4.57 (6 - 25) | 16.07 ± 4.53 (6 - 24) | 16.77 ± 4.65 (7 - 25) | 0.557 |
social_provision | 60 | 13.70 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 13.40 ± 2.67 (8 - 20) | 14.00 ± 3.31 (5 - 19) | 0.443 |
els_value_living | 60 | 17.15 ± 2.94 (5 - 23) | 16.67 ± 2.50 (12 - 22) | 17.63 ± 3.31 (5 - 23) | 0.206 |
els_life_fulfill | 60 | 12.78 ± 3.26 (4 - 18) | 11.73 ± 3.11 (5 - 17) | 13.83 ± 3.11 (4 - 18) | 0.011 |
els | 60 | 29.93 ± 5.50 (9 - 40) | 28.40 ± 4.53 (20 - 36) | 31.47 ± 6.02 (9 - 40) | 0.030 |
social_connect | 60 | 26.87 ± 9.35 (8 - 48) | 27.17 ± 8.07 (8 - 45) | 26.57 ± 10.61 (8 - 48) | 0.806 |
shs_agency | 60 | 14.28 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 13.50 ± 4.26 (3 - 20) | 15.07 ± 4.93 (3 - 21) | 0.193 |
shs_pathway | 60 | 16.58 ± 3.72 (4 - 22) | 15.97 ± 3.45 (8 - 22) | 17.20 ± 3.94 (4 - 22) | 0.202 |
shs | 60 | 30.87 ± 7.81 (7 - 42) | 29.47 ± 7.27 (14 - 41) | 32.27 ± 8.19 (7 - 42) | 0.167 |
esteem | 60 | 12.52 ± 1.23 (10 - 15) | 12.57 ± 1.14 (10 - 14) | 12.47 ± 1.33 (10 - 15) | 0.755 |
mlq_search | 60 | 14.90 ± 3.45 (3 - 21) | 14.93 ± 3.30 (6 - 21) | 14.87 ± 3.66 (3 - 20) | 0.941 |
mlq_presence | 60 | 13.50 ± 4.11 (3 - 21) | 13.60 ± 3.39 (6 - 20) | 13.40 ± 4.79 (3 - 21) | 0.853 |
mlq | 60 | 28.40 ± 6.72 (6 - 41) | 28.53 ± 5.96 (12 - 40) | 28.27 ± 7.50 (6 - 41) | 0.879 |
empower | 60 | 19.57 ± 4.23 (6 - 28) | 19.17 ± 3.83 (11 - 24) | 19.97 ± 4.62 (6 - 28) | 0.468 |
ismi_resistance | 60 | 14.62 ± 2.76 (5 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.30 (11 - 19) | 14.77 ± 3.18 (5 - 20) | 0.677 |
ismi_discrimation | 60 | 11.35 ± 3.38 (5 - 19) | 12.27 ± 2.92 (5 - 18) | 10.43 ± 3.61 (5 - 19) | 0.035 |
sss_affective | 60 | 10.00 ± 4.03 (3 - 18) | 10.67 ± 3.50 (3 - 18) | 9.33 ± 4.47 (3 - 18) | 0.203 |
sss_behavior | 60 | 9.73 ± 4.12 (3 - 18) | 10.60 ± 4.02 (3 - 18) | 8.87 ± 4.10 (3 - 18) | 0.104 |
sss_cognitive | 60 | 8.28 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 8.60 ± 4.34 (3 - 18) | 7.97 ± 4.00 (3 - 18) | 0.559 |
sss | 60 | 28.02 ± 11.42 (9 - 54) | 29.87 ± 10.56 (9 - 54) | 26.17 ± 12.11 (9 - 54) | 0.212 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.220 | 2.77, 3.63 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.100 | 0.311 | -0.509, 0.709 | 0.748 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.296 | 0.338 | -0.366, 0.959 | 0.385 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.025 | 0.463 | -0.932, 0.881 | 0.957 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.499 | 16.9, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.200 | 0.706 | -1.18, 1.58 | 0.778 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.099 | 0.692 | -1.46, 1.26 | 0.887 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.556 | 0.944 | -1.29, 2.41 | 0.559 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.913 | 27.9, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 1.291 | -1.53, 3.53 | 0.441 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.513 | 0.985 | -1.42, 2.44 | 0.606 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.048 | 1.338 | -2.57, 2.67 | 0.971 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.370 | 11.3, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.200 | 0.523 | -0.824, 1.22 | 0.703 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.863 | 0.361 | -1.57, -0.156 | 0.022 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.688 | 0.490 | -0.272, 1.65 | 0.169 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.563 | 16.4, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.067 | 0.796 | -1.63, 1.49 | 0.933 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.845 | 0.621 | -2.06, 0.372 | 0.181 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.47 | 0.844 | -0.184, 3.12 | 0.089 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.515 | 12.0, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.500 | 0.728 | -0.927, 1.93 | 0.494 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.242 | 0.466 | -0.671, 1.15 | 0.607 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.720 | 0.632 | -0.520, 1.96 | 0.262 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.403 | 9.74, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 0.571 | -2.15, 0.085 | 0.074 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.497 | 0.541 | -1.56, 0.565 | 0.364 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.30 | 0.738 | -0.142, 2.75 | 0.084 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.789 | 26.2, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.500 | 2.530 | -4.46, 5.46 | 0.844 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.645 | 1.267 | -3.13, 1.84 | 0.614 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.172 | 1.719 | -3.54, 3.20 | 0.921 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.895 | 20.6, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.100 | 1.266 | -2.58, 2.38 | 0.937 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.120 | 0.707 | -1.51, 1.27 | 0.867 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.20 | 0.959 | -3.08, 0.681 | 0.220 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.3 | 1.083 | 23.2, 27.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.667 | 1.532 | -2.34, 3.67 | 0.665 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.19 | 1.009 | -3.16, 0.791 | 0.248 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.524 | 1.370 | -2.16, 3.21 | 0.704 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.4 | 1.221 | 17.0, 21.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.87 | 1.726 | -0.517, 6.25 | 0.101 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.918 | 1.374 | -1.78, 3.61 | 0.508 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.80 | 1.869 | -5.46, 1.86 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.672 | 9.65, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.567 | 0.950 | -1.30, 2.43 | 0.553 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.722 | 0.637 | -0.525, 1.97 | 0.264 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.29 | 0.864 | -2.99, 0.401 | 0.144 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.973 | 12.8, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.500 | 1.376 | -3.20, 2.20 | 0.717 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.29 | 1.072 | -0.813, 3.39 | 0.237 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.44 | 1.457 | -4.30, 1.41 | 0.329 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 1.143 | 19.3, 23.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.800 | 1.617 | -2.37, 3.97 | 0.622 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 1.187 | -1.32, 3.33 | 0.402 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.16 | 1.613 | -5.32, 1.01 | 0.189 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.802 | 14.5, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.700 | 1.134 | -1.52, 2.92 | 0.539 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.593 | 0.757 | -0.890, 2.08 | 0.439 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.116 | 1.028 | -1.90, 2.13 | 0.911 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.537 | 12.3, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.600 | 0.760 | -0.889, 2.09 | 0.432 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.433 | 0.577 | -1.56, 0.697 | 0.457 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.270 | 0.784 | -1.27, 1.81 | 0.732 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.536 | 15.6, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.967 | 0.759 | -0.520, 2.45 | 0.207 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.636 | 0.550 | -0.441, 1.71 | 0.254 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.483 | 0.747 | -1.95, 0.981 | 0.522 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.550 | 10.7, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.10 | 0.778 | 0.574, 3.63 | 0.009 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 0.575 | 0.027, 2.28 | 0.052 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.953 | 0.781 | -2.48, 0.577 | 0.230 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.095 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 0.967 | 26.5, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.07 | 1.367 | 0.388, 5.75 | 0.028 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.71 | 0.930 | -0.112, 3.53 | 0.074 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.35 | 1.262 | -3.83, 1.12 | 0.290 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.069 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.2 | 1.681 | 23.9, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.600 | 2.377 | -5.26, 4.06 | 0.802 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.620 | 1.337 | -2.00, 3.24 | 0.646 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.491 | 1.814 | -4.05, 3.06 | 0.788 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.848 | 11.8, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.57 | 1.200 | -0.785, 3.92 | 0.196 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.407 | 0.860 | -1.28, 2.09 | 0.639 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.205 | 1.168 | -2.08, 2.49 | 0.861 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.669 | 14.7, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.23 | 0.947 | -0.622, 3.09 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.595 | 0.600 | -0.581, 1.77 | 0.328 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.777 | 0.814 | -2.37, 0.819 | 0.347 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.5 | 1.411 | 26.7, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.80 | 1.995 | -1.11, 6.71 | 0.165 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.943 | 1.287 | -1.58, 3.47 | 0.469 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.490 | 1.748 | -3.91, 2.94 | 0.781 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.223 | 12.1, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.100 | 0.316 | -0.718, 0.518 | 0.752 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.612 | 0.379 | -0.130, 1.35 | 0.113 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.349 | 0.520 | -1.37, 0.670 | 0.505 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.635 | 13.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.067 | 0.898 | -1.83, 1.69 | 0.941 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.032 | 0.804 | -1.61, 1.54 | 0.968 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.099 | 1.094 | -2.24, 2.05 | 0.928 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.741 | 12.1, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.200 | 1.048 | -2.25, 1.85 | 0.849 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.028 | 0.891 | -1.72, 1.77 | 0.975 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.100 | 1.213 | -2.28, 2.48 | 0.935 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 1.247 | 26.1, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.267 | 1.764 | -3.72, 3.19 | 0.880 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.013 | 1.522 | -3.00, 2.97 | 0.993 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.000 | 2.072 | -4.06, 4.06 | 1.00 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.741 | 17.7, 20.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.800 | 1.048 | -1.25, 2.85 | 0.448 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.168 | 0.712 | -1.23, 1.56 | 0.814 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.894 | 0.967 | -2.79, 1.00 | 0.361 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.474 | 13.5, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.300 | 0.671 | -1.01, 1.61 | 0.656 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.554 | 0.665 | -0.749, 1.86 | 0.409 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.650 | 0.907 | -2.43, 1.13 | 0.477 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.607 | 11.1, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.83 | 0.858 | -3.52, -0.151 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.936 | 0.597 | -2.11, 0.234 | 0.126 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.48 | 0.811 | -0.109, 3.07 | 0.077 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.706 | 9.28, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.33 | 0.998 | -3.29, 0.623 | 0.186 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.019 | 0.601 | -1.16, 1.20 | 0.975 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.839 | 0.816 | -2.44, 0.761 | 0.311 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.715 | 9.20, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.73 | 1.011 | -3.71, 0.247 | 0.091 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.302 | 0.650 | -1.58, 0.972 | 0.645 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.360 | 0.883 | -2.09, 1.37 | 0.686 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.60 | 0.745 | 7.14, 10.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.633 | 1.053 | -2.70, 1.43 | 0.550 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.871 | 0.610 | -0.325, 2.07 | 0.163 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.66 | 0.828 | -3.28, -0.037 | 0.053 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 2.006 | 25.9, 33.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.70 | 2.837 | -9.26, 1.86 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.657 | 1.542 | -2.36, 3.68 | 0.673 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.93 | 2.091 | -7.02, 1.17 | 0.171 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.77, 3.63], t(87) = 14.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.71], t(87) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.96], t(87) = 0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.80])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.88], t(87) = -0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.83 (95% CI [16.85, 18.81], t(87) = 35.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.58], t(87) = 0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.26], t(87) = -0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.41], t(87) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.89])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.73 (95% CI [27.94, 31.52], t(87) = 32.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.53, 3.53], t(87) = 0.77, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.44], t(87) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.57, 2.67], t(87) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 9.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [11.28, 12.72], t(87) = 32.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.22], t(87) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.16], t(87) = -2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.65], t(87) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.47 (95% CI [16.36, 18.57], t(87) = 31.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.49], t(87) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.37], t(87) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.18, 3.12], t(87) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.00])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.02, 14.04], t(87) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.93], t(87) = 0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(87) = 0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.96], t(87) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.53 (95% CI [9.74, 11.32], t(87) = 26.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.15, 0.09], t(87) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.56], t(87) = -0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.75], t(87) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.70 (95% CI [26.19, 33.21], t(87) = 16.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-4.46, 5.46], t(87) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.84], t(87) = -0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-3.54, 3.20], t(87) = -0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.40 (95% CI [20.65, 24.15], t(87) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(87) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.27], t(87) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.68], t(87) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.33 (95% CI [23.21, 27.46], t(87) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.67], t(87) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.16, 0.79], t(87) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-2.16, 3.21], t(87) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.37 (95% CI [16.97, 21.76], t(87) = 15.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.87, 95% CI [-0.52, 6.25], t(87) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.92])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.61], t(87) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-5.46, 1.86], t(87) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.65, 12.28], t(87) = 16.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.43], t(87) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.97], t(87) = 1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.99, 0.40], t(87) = -1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.73 (95% CI [12.83, 16.64], t(87) = 15.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-3.20, 2.20], t(87) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.39], t(87) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-4.30, 1.41], t(87) = -0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.50 (95% CI [19.26, 23.74], t(87) = 18.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.97], t(87) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.32, 3.33], t(87) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-5.32, 1.01], t(87) = -1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.07 (95% CI [14.50, 17.64], t(87) = 20.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.92], t(87) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.08], t(87) = 0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.13], t(87) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.35, 14.45], t(87) = 24.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.09], t(87) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.70], t(87) = -0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.81], t(87) = 0.34, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.62, 17.72], t(87) = 31.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.45], t(87) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.71], t(87) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.98], t(87) = -0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.73 (95% CI [10.65, 12.81], t(87) = 21.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.10, 95% CI [0.57, 3.63], t(87) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.18, 1.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [0.03, 2.28], t(87) = 2.01, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [8.52e-03, 0.73])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.58], t(87) = -1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.40 (95% CI [26.51, 30.29], t(87) = 29.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.07, 95% CI [0.39, 5.75], t(87) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [0.07, 1.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.71, 95% CI [-0.11, 3.53], t(87) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.12], t(87) = -1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.17 (95% CI [23.87, 30.46], t(87) = 16.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-5.26, 4.06], t(87) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.24], t(87) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-4.05, 3.06], t(87) = -0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.50 (95% CI [11.84, 15.16], t(87) = 15.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.79, 3.92], t(87) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.09], t(87) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.49], t(87) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.97 (95% CI [14.65, 17.28], t(87) = 23.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.09], t(87) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.77], t(87) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.82], t(87) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.47 (95% CI [26.70, 32.23], t(87) = 20.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [-1.11, 6.71], t(87) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.58, 3.47], t(87) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.91, 2.94], t(87) = -0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.13, 13.00], t(87) = 56.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.52], t(87) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.35], t(87) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.67], t(87) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [13.69, 16.18], t(87) = 23.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.83, 1.69], t(87) = -0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.54], t(87) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -9.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.24, 2.05], t(87) = -0.09, p = 0.928; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.25e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.60 (95% CI [12.15, 15.05], t(87) = 18.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.85], t(87) = -0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.77], t(87) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 7.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.48], t(87) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.87e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [26.09, 30.98], t(87) = 22.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.72, 3.19], t(87) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.97], t(87) = -8.58e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = -1.94e-03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.50e-04, 95% CI [-4.06, 4.06], t(87) = -1.69e-04, p > .999; Std. beta = -5.19e-05, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.17 (95% CI [17.71, 20.62], t(87) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.85], t(87) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.56], t(87) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.79, 1.00], t(87) = -0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.54, 15.40], t(87) = 30.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.61], t(87) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.86], t(87) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.13], t(87) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.27 (95% CI [11.08, 13.46], t(87) = 20.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-3.52, -0.15], t(87) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.23], t(87) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-0.11, 3.07], t(87) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.28, 12.05], t(87) = 15.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.33, 95% CI [-3.29, 0.62], t(87) = -1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.20], t(87) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 4.79e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.76], t(87) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.60 (95% CI [9.20, 12.00], t(87) = 14.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.73, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.25], t(87) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.97], t(87) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.37], t(87) = -0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.60 (95% CI [7.14, 10.06], t(87) = 11.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.70, 1.43], t(87) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.07], t(87) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.28, -0.04], t(87) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.82, -9.08e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [25.93, 33.80], t(87) = 14.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.70, 95% CI [-9.26, 1.86], t(87) = -1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.36, 3.68], t(87) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.93, 95% CI [-7.02, 1.17], t(87) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 299.315 | 306.913 | -146.657 | 293.315 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 303.602 | 318.797 | -145.801 | 291.602 | 1.713 | 3 | 0.634 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 446.734 | 454.331 | -220.367 | 440.734 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 451.813 | 467.009 | -219.907 | 439.813 | 0.920 | 3 | 0.820 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 545.714 | 553.311 | -269.857 | 539.714 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 550.304 | 565.499 | -269.152 | 538.304 | 1.410 | 3 | 0.703 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 376.220 | 383.817 | -185.110 | 370.220 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 376.194 | 391.390 | -182.097 | 364.194 | 6.025 | 3 | 0.110 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 458.971 | 466.569 | -226.486 | 452.971 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 461.633 | 476.829 | -224.817 | 449.633 | 3.338 | 3 | 0.342 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 433.594 | 441.192 | -213.797 | 427.594 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 433.191 | 448.386 | -210.595 | 421.191 | 6.403 | 3 | 0.094 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 409.476 | 417.074 | -201.738 | 403.476 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 410.565 | 425.761 | -199.283 | 398.565 | 4.910 | 3 | 0.178 |
symptom | null | 3 | 644.411 | 652.009 | -319.206 | 638.411 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 649.592 | 664.787 | -318.796 | 637.592 | 0.820 | 3 | 0.845 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 525.936 | 533.534 | -259.968 | 519.936 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 527.628 | 542.824 | -257.814 | 515.628 | 4.308 | 3 | 0.230 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 569.536 | 577.134 | -281.768 | 563.536 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 573.383 | 588.579 | -280.692 | 561.383 | 2.153 | 3 | 0.541 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 603.918 | 611.516 | -298.959 | 597.918 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 606.875 | 622.071 | -297.438 | 594.875 | 3.043 | 3 | 0.385 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 481.881 | 489.478 | -237.940 | 475.881 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 485.546 | 500.741 | -236.773 | 473.546 | 2.335 | 3 | 0.506 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 559.439 | 567.037 | -276.720 | 553.439 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 563.428 | 578.623 | -275.714 | 551.428 | 2.012 | 3 | 0.570 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 585.838 | 593.436 | -289.919 | 579.838 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 589.946 | 605.141 | -288.973 | 577.946 | 1.893 | 3 | 0.595 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 514.407 | 522.005 | -254.203 | 508.407 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 518.188 | 533.384 | -253.094 | 506.188 | 2.219 | 3 | 0.528 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 446.975 | 454.573 | -220.488 | 440.975 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 451.412 | 466.607 | -219.706 | 439.412 | 1.563 | 3 | 0.668 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 445.304 | 452.901 | -219.652 | 439.304 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 448.442 | 463.638 | -218.221 | 436.442 | 2.862 | 3 | 0.413 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 458.495 | 466.093 | -226.247 | 452.495 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 454.325 | 469.520 | -221.162 | 442.325 | 10.170 | 3 | 0.017 |
els | null | 3 | 555.948 | 563.546 | -274.974 | 549.948 | |||
els | random | 6 | 554.120 | 569.316 | -271.060 | 542.120 | 7.828 | 3 | 0.050 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 639.652 | 647.250 | -316.826 | 633.652 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 645.310 | 660.506 | -316.655 | 633.310 | 0.342 | 3 | 0.952 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 529.984 | 537.582 | -261.992 | 523.984 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 533.020 | 548.216 | -260.510 | 521.020 | 2.964 | 3 | 0.397 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 477.855 | 485.453 | -235.927 | 471.855 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 481.468 | 496.663 | -234.734 | 469.468 | 2.387 | 3 | 0.496 |
shs | null | 3 | 617.937 | 625.535 | -305.969 | 611.937 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 621.252 | 636.448 | -304.626 | 609.252 | 2.685 | 3 | 0.443 |
esteem | null | 3 | 306.827 | 314.425 | -150.413 | 300.827 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 309.008 | 324.203 | -148.504 | 297.008 | 3.819 | 3 | 0.282 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 485.870 | 493.468 | -239.935 | 479.870 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 491.820 | 507.015 | -239.910 | 479.820 | 0.050 | 3 | 0.997 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 511.897 | 519.495 | -252.949 | 505.897 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 517.841 | 533.037 | -252.921 | 505.841 | 0.056 | 3 | 0.997 |
mlq | null | 3 | 609.445 | 617.042 | -301.722 | 603.445 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 615.418 | 630.613 | -301.709 | 603.418 | 0.027 | 3 | 0.999 |
empower | null | 3 | 500.277 | 507.875 | -247.139 | 494.277 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 504.658 | 519.854 | -246.329 | 492.658 | 1.619 | 3 | 0.655 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 437.503 | 445.101 | -215.752 | 431.503 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 442.733 | 457.929 | -215.367 | 430.733 | 0.770 | 3 | 0.857 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 469.376 | 476.973 | -231.688 | 463.376 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 468.952 | 484.148 | -228.476 | 456.952 | 6.424 | 3 | 0.093 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 487.195 | 494.793 | -240.597 | 481.195 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 488.198 | 503.393 | -238.099 | 476.198 | 4.997 | 3 | 0.172 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 493.699 | 501.297 | -243.850 | 487.699 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 494.566 | 509.761 | -241.283 | 482.566 | 5.134 | 3 | 0.162 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 494.915 | 502.513 | -244.458 | 488.915 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 495.772 | 510.967 | -241.886 | 483.772 | 5.144 | 3 | 0.162 |
sss | null | 3 | 675.605 | 683.202 | -334.802 | 669.605 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 676.048 | 691.243 | -332.024 | 664.048 | 5.557 | 3 | 0.135 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 30 | 3.20 ± 1.20 | 30 | 3.30 ± 1.20 | 0.748 | -0.098 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 15 | 3.50 ± 1.20 | -0.290 | 18 | 3.57 ± 1.20 | -0.265 | 0.859 | -0.073 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 30 | 17.83 ± 2.73 | 30 | 18.03 ± 2.73 | 0.778 | -0.098 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 15 | 17.73 ± 2.63 | 0.048 | 18 | 18.49 ± 2.65 | -0.224 | 0.414 | -0.370 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 30 | 29.73 ± 5.00 | 30 | 30.73 ± 5.00 | 0.441 | -0.356 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 15 | 30.25 ± 4.40 | -0.182 | 18 | 31.29 ± 4.52 | -0.200 | 0.503 | -0.373 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 30 | 12.00 ± 2.02 | 30 | 12.20 ± 2.02 | 0.703 | -0.196 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 15 | 11.14 ± 1.73 | 0.846 | 18 | 12.02 ± 1.79 | 0.172 | 0.151 | -0.870 |
ras_goal | 1st | 30 | 17.47 ± 3.08 | 30 | 17.40 ± 3.08 | 0.933 | 0.038 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 15 | 16.62 ± 2.73 | 0.476 | 18 | 18.03 ± 2.80 | -0.352 | 0.150 | -0.791 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 30 | 13.03 ± 2.82 | 30 | 13.53 ± 2.82 | 0.495 | -0.381 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 15 | 13.27 ± 2.35 | -0.184 | 18 | 14.49 ± 2.45 | -0.733 | 0.150 | -0.930 |
ras_domination | 1st | 30 | 10.53 ± 2.21 | 30 | 9.50 ± 2.21 | 0.074 | 0.650 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 15 | 10.04 ± 2.10 | 0.312 | 18 | 10.31 ± 2.12 | -0.509 | 0.713 | -0.171 |
symptom | 1st | 30 | 29.70 ± 9.80 | 30 | 30.20 ± 9.80 | 0.844 | -0.142 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 15 | 29.05 ± 7.73 | 0.183 | 18 | 29.38 ± 8.19 | 0.232 | 0.906 | -0.093 |
slof_work | 1st | 30 | 22.40 ± 4.90 | 30 | 22.30 ± 4.90 | 0.937 | 0.051 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 15 | 22.28 ± 3.96 | 0.060 | 18 | 20.98 ± 4.16 | 0.667 | 0.362 | 0.657 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 30 | 25.33 ± 5.93 | 30 | 26.00 ± 5.93 | 0.665 | -0.234 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 15 | 24.15 ± 4.99 | 0.417 | 18 | 25.34 ± 5.20 | 0.233 | 0.505 | -0.418 |
satisfaction | 1st | 30 | 19.37 ± 6.69 | 30 | 22.23 ± 6.69 | 0.101 | -0.728 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 15 | 20.28 ± 5.97 | -0.233 | 18 | 21.35 ± 6.12 | 0.224 | 0.614 | -0.271 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 30 | 10.97 ± 3.68 | 30 | 11.53 ± 3.68 | 0.553 | -0.315 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 15 | 11.69 ± 3.11 | -0.402 | 18 | 10.96 ± 3.23 | 0.318 | 0.513 | 0.404 |
mhc_social | 1st | 30 | 14.73 ± 5.33 | 30 | 14.23 ± 5.33 | 0.717 | 0.163 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 15 | 16.02 ± 4.72 | -0.420 | 18 | 14.08 ± 4.85 | 0.051 | 0.248 | 0.634 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 30 | 21.50 ± 6.26 | 30 | 22.30 ± 6.26 | 0.622 | -0.237 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 15 | 22.51 ± 5.44 | -0.298 | 18 | 21.15 ± 5.62 | 0.341 | 0.484 | 0.402 |
resilisnce | 1st | 30 | 16.07 ± 4.39 | 30 | 16.77 ± 4.39 | 0.539 | -0.328 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 15 | 16.66 ± 3.71 | -0.278 | 18 | 17.48 ± 3.85 | -0.332 | 0.538 | -0.382 |
social_provision | 1st | 30 | 13.40 ± 2.94 | 30 | 14.00 ± 2.94 | 0.432 | -0.365 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 15 | 12.97 ± 2.58 | 0.264 | 18 | 13.84 ± 2.66 | 0.099 | 0.344 | -0.529 |
els_value_living | 1st | 30 | 16.67 ± 2.94 | 30 | 17.63 ± 2.94 | 0.207 | -0.619 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 15 | 17.30 ± 2.54 | -0.407 | 18 | 17.79 ± 2.63 | -0.098 | 0.593 | -0.310 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 30 | 11.73 ± 3.02 | 30 | 13.83 ± 3.02 | 0.009 | -1.285 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 15 | 12.89 ± 2.62 | -0.705 | 18 | 14.03 ± 2.71 | -0.122 | 0.221 | -0.701 |
els | 1st | 30 | 28.40 ± 5.29 | 30 | 31.47 ± 5.29 | 0.028 | -1.167 | ||
els | 2nd | 15 | 30.11 ± 4.50 | -0.651 | 18 | 31.82 ± 4.67 | -0.135 | 0.287 | -0.652 |
social_connect | 1st | 30 | 27.17 ± 9.21 | 30 | 26.57 ± 9.21 | 0.802 | 0.160 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 15 | 27.79 ± 7.44 | -0.166 | 18 | 26.70 ± 7.83 | -0.035 | 0.683 | 0.292 |
shs_agency | 1st | 30 | 13.50 ± 4.65 | 30 | 15.07 ± 4.65 | 0.196 | -0.642 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 15 | 13.91 ± 4.01 | -0.167 | 18 | 15.68 ± 4.14 | -0.251 | 0.216 | -0.726 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 30 | 15.97 ± 3.67 | 30 | 17.20 ± 3.67 | 0.197 | -0.731 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 15 | 16.56 ± 3.05 | -0.352 | 18 | 17.02 ± 3.19 | 0.108 | 0.676 | -0.270 |
shs | 1st | 30 | 29.47 ± 7.73 | 30 | 32.27 ± 7.73 | 0.165 | -0.772 | ||
shs | 2nd | 15 | 30.41 ± 6.47 | -0.260 | 18 | 32.72 ± 6.74 | -0.125 | 0.319 | -0.637 |
esteem | 1st | 30 | 12.57 ± 1.22 | 30 | 12.47 ± 1.22 | 0.752 | 0.084 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 15 | 13.18 ± 1.24 | -0.516 | 18 | 12.73 ± 1.24 | -0.222 | 0.302 | 0.379 |
mlq_search | 1st | 30 | 14.93 ± 3.48 | 30 | 14.87 ± 3.48 | 0.941 | 0.029 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 15 | 14.90 ± 3.23 | 0.014 | 18 | 14.74 ± 3.28 | 0.056 | 0.884 | 0.071 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 30 | 13.60 ± 4.06 | 30 | 13.40 ± 4.06 | 0.849 | 0.078 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 15 | 13.63 ± 3.71 | -0.011 | 18 | 13.53 ± 3.78 | -0.050 | 0.939 | 0.039 |
mlq | 1st | 30 | 28.53 ± 6.83 | 30 | 28.27 ± 6.83 | 0.880 | 0.061 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 15 | 28.52 ± 6.27 | 0.003 | 18 | 28.25 ± 6.38 | 0.003 | 0.904 | 0.061 |
empower | 1st | 30 | 19.17 ± 4.06 | 30 | 19.97 ± 4.06 | 0.448 | -0.398 | ||
empower | 2nd | 15 | 19.33 ± 3.45 | -0.084 | 18 | 19.24 ± 3.58 | 0.361 | 0.939 | 0.047 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 30 | 14.47 ± 2.60 | 30 | 14.77 ± 2.60 | 0.656 | -0.153 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 15 | 15.02 ± 2.50 | -0.282 | 18 | 14.67 ± 2.52 | 0.049 | 0.691 | 0.178 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 30 | 12.27 ± 3.32 | 30 | 10.43 ± 3.32 | 0.036 | 1.085 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 15 | 11.33 ± 2.84 | 0.553 | 18 | 10.98 ± 2.94 | -0.322 | 0.727 | 0.209 |
sss_affective | 1st | 30 | 10.67 ± 3.87 | 30 | 9.33 ± 3.87 | 0.186 | 0.790 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 15 | 10.69 ± 3.18 | -0.011 | 18 | 8.51 ± 3.33 | 0.486 | 0.059 | 1.287 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 30 | 10.60 ± 3.91 | 30 | 8.87 ± 3.91 | 0.091 | 0.946 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 15 | 10.30 ± 3.27 | 0.165 | 18 | 8.20 ± 3.41 | 0.361 | 0.076 | 1.142 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 30 | 8.60 ± 4.08 | 30 | 7.97 ± 4.08 | 0.550 | 0.370 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 15 | 9.47 ± 3.32 | -0.510 | 18 | 7.18 ± 3.49 | 0.461 | 0.057 | 1.341 |
sss | 1st | 30 | 29.87 ± 10.99 | 30 | 26.17 ± 10.99 | 0.197 | 0.859 | ||
sss | 2nd | 15 | 30.52 ± 8.82 | -0.153 | 18 | 23.90 ± 9.29 | 0.527 | 0.039 | 1.539 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(84.60) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.72)
2st
t(88.71) = 0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(78.89) = 0.28, p = 0.778, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.61)
2st
t(88.73) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.59)
ras_confidence
1st
t(69.24) = 0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.57 to 3.57)
2st
t(88.65) = 0.67, p = 0.503, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.14)
ras_willingness
1st
t(66.85) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.24)
2st
t(87.54) = 1.45, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.11)
ras_goal
1st
t(69.87) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.52)
2st
t(88.79) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.32)
ras_reliance
1st
t(65.41) = 0.69, p = 0.495, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.95)
2st
t(86.18) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.89)
ras_domination
1st
t(77.28) = -1.81, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.10)
2st
t(88.81) = 0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.74)
symptom
1st
t(62.28) = 0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-4.56 to 5.56)
2st
t(79.83) = 0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-5.20 to 5.85)
slof_work
1st
t(63.45) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.63 to 2.43)
2st
t(82.90) = -0.92, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.12 to 1.52)
slof_relationship
1st
t(65.92) = 0.44, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.39 to 3.73)
2st
t(86.74) = 0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-2.34 to 4.73)
satisfaction
1st
t(70.46) = 1.66, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.58 to 6.31)
2st
t(88.88) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-3.12 to 5.26)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(66.25) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.46)
2st
t(87.06) = -0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.93 to 1.47)
mhc_social
1st
t(69.82) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.24 to 2.24)
2st
t(88.78) = -1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.26 to 1.38)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(68.26) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.43 to 4.03)
2st
t(88.32) = -0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-5.19 to 2.48)
resilisnce
1st
t(66.18) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.96)
2st
t(86.99) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.81 to 3.44)
social_provision
1st
t(69.10) = 0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.12)
2st
t(88.61) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.69)
els_value_living
1st
t(67.93) = 1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.48)
2st
t(88.18) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.28)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(68.37) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.65)
2st
t(88.37) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.70 to 3.00)
els
1st
t(66.54) = 2.24, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.34 to 5.80)
2st
t(87.30) = 1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.47 to 4.89)
social_connect
1st
t(63.53) = -0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-5.35 to 4.15)
2st
t(83.08) = -0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-6.39 to 4.21)
shs_agency
1st
t(67.66) = 1.31, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.83 to 3.96)
2st
t(88.04) = 1.25, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.06 to 4.60)
shs_pathway
1st
t(65.25) = 1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.66 to 3.12)
2st
t(85.97) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.62)
shs
1st
t(65.56) = 1.40, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-1.18 to 6.78)
2st
t(86.35) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-2.27 to 6.89)
esteem
1st
t(88.80) = -0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.53)
2st
t(88.98) = -1.04, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.41)
mlq_search
1st
t(74.66) = -0.07, p = 0.941, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.72)
2st
t(88.94) = -0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.43 to 2.10)
mlq_presence
1st
t(72.64) = -0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.89)
2st
t(89.00) = -0.08, p = 0.939, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.50)
mlq
1st
t(73.21) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.78 to 3.25)
2st
t(88.99) = -0.12, p = 0.904, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-4.66 to 4.12)
empower
1st
t(66.51) = 0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.89)
2st
t(87.28) = -0.08, p = 0.939, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.53 to 2.34)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(79.45) = 0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.63)
2st
t(88.71) = -0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.40)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(67.00) = -2.14, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.55 to -0.12)
2st
t(87.65) = -0.35, p = 0.727, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.36 to 1.65)
sss_affective
1st
t(64.46) = -1.34, p = 0.186, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.33 to 0.66)
2st
t(84.84) = -1.91, p = 0.059, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-4.43 to 0.08)
sss_behavior
1st
t(65.51) = -1.72, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.75 to 0.28)
2st
t(86.30) = -1.79, p = 0.076, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-4.41 to 0.23)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(63.91) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.74 to 1.47)
2st
t(83.86) = -1.93, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 1.34, 95% CI (-4.66 to 0.07)
sss
1st
t(63.12) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-9.37 to 1.97)
2st
t(82.13) = -2.10, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 1.54, 95% CI (-12.91 to -0.34)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(43.27) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(39.91) = 0.71, p = 0.969, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.77)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(35.54) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.41)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(34.55) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(35.80) = 1.09, p = 0.568, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.79)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(33.97) = 2.24, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.83)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(39.11) = 1.60, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.83)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(32.71) = -0.70, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.19 to 1.55)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.18) = -2.03, p = 0.101, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.00)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(34.18) = -0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(36.06) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.46 to 1.70)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(34.31) = -0.97, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.62)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(35.78) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.17 to 1.86)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(35.13) = -1.05, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.38 to 1.08)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(34.28) = 1.02, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.13)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(35.48) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.92)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(35.00) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.18)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(35.18) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.28)
els
1st vs 2st
t(34.43) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.10)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.21) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.63)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(34.89) = 0.77, p = 0.892, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.22)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(33.90) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.94)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(34.03) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.86)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(48.01) = 0.73, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.99)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(37.89) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.38)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(36.99) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.81)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(37.24) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.85)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(34.42) = -1.10, p = 0.554, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.61)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(40.20) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.16)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(34.62) = 0.99, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(33.59) = -1.48, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.31)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(34.01) = -1.10, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.56)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.36) = -1.40, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.35)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.05) = -1.60, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.61)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(46.78) = 0.87, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.98)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(42.43) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.31)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(36.77) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(35.50) = -2.38, p = 0.046, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-1.60 to -0.13)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(37.11) = -1.35, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.42)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(34.76) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.19)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(41.39) = -0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.61)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(33.15) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.94)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.75) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.32)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(35.02) = -1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.25 to 0.87)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(37.43) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.89 to 3.72)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(35.19) = 1.13, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.02)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(37.08) = 1.19, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.47)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(36.24) = 0.84, p = 0.811, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.42 to 3.43)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(35.15) = 0.78, p = 0.882, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.14)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(36.69) = -0.75, p = 0.920, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.74)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(36.07) = 1.15, p = 0.515, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.76)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(36.31) = 1.99, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.33)
els
1st vs 2st
t(35.34) = 1.83, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.61)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.79) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.35)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(35.93) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.16)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(34.67) = 0.99, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.82)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(34.83) = 0.73, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.68 to 3.57)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(52.81) = 1.60, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.38)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(39.80) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.61)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(38.64) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.85)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(38.96) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.09)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(35.32) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.62)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(42.80) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.91)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(35.58) = -1.56, p = 0.256, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.15 to 0.28)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(34.26) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.25)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(34.81) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.02)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.98) = 1.42, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.12)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.58) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.80)
Plot
